The smallest worthwhile effect of primary care physiotherapy did not differ across musculoskeletal pain sites

Objectives: To determine and compare estimates of the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) for physiotherapy in neck, shoulder, and low-back pain patients and to investigate the influence of sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors on these estimates. Methods: A structured telephone interview was conducted before treatment was commenced in 160 patients referred for primary care physiotherapy. The benefit-harm trade-off method was used to estimate the SWE of physiotherapy for the following outcomes; pain, disability, and time to recovery, compared with the improvement achieved without any treatment (natural course). Regression analyses were used to assess the influence of sociodemographics, clinical variables, and intake scores on pain, disability, and psychological scales. Results: The median SWE for improvements on pain and disability was 20% (interquartile range 10%–30%), and the SWE for time to recovery was 10 days (interquartile range 7–14 days) over a period of 6 weeks. These estimates did not differ with respect to pain location (neck, shoulder, or back) and were generally unaffected by sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors. Conclusion: People with neck, shoulder, and low-back pain need to see at least 20% of additional improvement on pain and disability compared with natural recovery to consider that the effect of physiotherapy is worthwhile, given its costs, potential side effects, and inconveniences

Clinical course and prognosis of musculoskeletal pain in patients referred for physiotherapy: does pain site matter?

Background: Danish patients with musculoskeletal disorders are commonly referred for primary care physiotherapy treatment but little is known about their general health status, pain diagnoses, clinical course and prognosis. The objectives of this study were to 1) describe the clinical course of patients with musculoskeletal disorders referred to physiotherapy, 2) identify predictors associated with a satisfactory outcome, and 3) determine the influence of the primary pain site diagnosis relative to those predictors. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients (n = 2,706) newly referred because of musculoskeletal pain to 30 physiotherapy practices from January 2012 to May 2012. Data were collected via a web-based questionnaire 1–2 days prior to the first physiotherapy consultation and at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, from clinical records (including primary musculoskeletal symptom diagnosis based on the ICPC-2 classification system), and from national registry data. The main outcome was the Patient Acceptable Symptom State. Potential predictors were analysed using backwards step-wise selection during longitudinal Generalised Estimating Equation regression modelling. To assess the influence of pain site on these associations, primary pain site diagnosis was added to the model. Results: Of the patients included, 66% were female and the mean age was 48 (SD 15). The percentage of patients reporting their symptoms as acceptable was 32% at 6 weeks, 43% at 3 months and 52% at 6 months. A higher probability of satisfactory outcome was associated with place of residence, being retired, no compensation claim, less frequent pain, shorter duration of pain, lower levels of disability and fear avoidance, better mental health and being a non-smoker. Primary pain site diagnosis had little influence on these associations, and was not predictive of a satisfactory outcome. Conclusion: Only half of the patients rated their symptoms as acceptable at 6 months. Although satisfactory outcome was difficult to predict at an individual patient level, there were a number of prognostic factors that were associated with this outcome. These factors should be considered when developing generic prediction tools to assess the probability of satisfactory outcome in musculoskeletal physiotherapy patients, because the site of pain did not affect that prognostic association

Responsiveness and minimal important change for the quick-DASH in patients with shoulder disorders

Abstract Background Responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) are central measurement properties when interpreting scores from health questionnaires. The aim of the study was to evaluate the responsiveness and MIC of the Danish version of the shortened version the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (Quick-DASH) in patients with shoulder disorders referred to primary care physiotherapy treatment. Methods The study included 261 patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and 3 and 6 months follow up. Absolute and relative change scores was analysed using receiver-operating-characteristics (ROC) curve analysis with the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) as external anchor. Results At both 3 and 6 months follow up, the Area under the Curve (ROC AUC) exceeded 0.70 and MIC was 9.1 and 13.6 at 3 and 6 months respectively. Conclusion The Danish version of the Quick-DASH demonstrated adequate ability to measure changes in disability over 3 and 6 months in patients with shoulder disorders undergoing primary care physiotherapy treatment

Cohort profile: Design and implementation of the Danish Physiotherapy Research Database for patients receiving primary care with chronic disease

Purpose Free of charge physiotherapy (FCP) is free physiotherapy provided by the Danish government for patients with a range of chronic diseases. To date, the population has not been described in depth making evaluation and decision making difficult. The purpose of this study was to (1) describe the development and the content of a novel clinical physiotherapy database for FCP (PhysDB-FCP) and (2) present the cohort profile based on the data collected.Participants Ninety-nine clinics (17 460 FCP patients) were invited to participate in the development process from 2018 to 2019. Eleven clinics consented (2780 FCP patients) and 534 patients performed the physiotherapy assessment using the PhysDB-FCP tool, with 393/534 completing the patient survey.Findings to date The content of the PhysDB-FCP was developed through an iterative process involving consensus between clinical and research workgroups. Prior to using the tool all consenting sites received training to use/administer the tool. All data were collected/stored using the PhysDB-FCP. Items finally chosen for the PhysDB-FCP included demographic information, questions about health status and daily functioning, functional tests, treatment plan and validated questionnaires. The initial patient cohort composed of 63.4% women with main diagnoses of multiple sclerosis (22.7%) and Parkinson’s disease (17.0%). The ability to perform personal/instrumental activities of daily living and functional ability varied widely. Other non-physiotherapy related issues were identified in numerous patients (ie, 34.9% of patients were at risk of depression) and multidisciplinary interventional approaches could be considered.Future plans The current study has provided a comprehensive description of patients receiving FCP, using data collected from the novel PhysDB-FCP. Collected information can be used to facilitate microlevel to macrolevel programme evaluation and decisions. Although the PhysDB-FCP is promising, the tool requires optimisation before it is implemented regionally and/or nationally

Additional file 1: of Clinical course and prognosis of musculoskeletal pain in patients referred for physiotherapy: does pain site matter?

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish version of the Standard Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) modules. (DOCX 251 kb

The effectiveness of a stratified care model for non-specific low back pain in Danish primary care compared to current practice: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Abstract Background Prior studies indicate that stratified care for low back pain results in better clinical outcome and reduced costs in healthcare compared to current practice. Stratified care may be associated with clinical benefits for patients with low back pain at a lower cost, but evidence is sparse. Hence this study aims to evaluate the clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of stratified care in patients with non-specific low back pain compared to current practice. Methods/design The study is a two-armed randomised controlled trial in primary care in the Regions of Southern and Central Denmark (2.5 million citizens). Patients with non-specific low back will be recruited by paticpating GPs. Patients are randomised to either (1) stratified care or (2) current practice at participating physiotherapy clinics. In the stratified care arm, the intervention is based on the patient’s STarT Back Tool classification and trained accordingly, whereas physiotherapists in the current pratice arm are blinded to the STarT score. Primary outcomes in the trial will be group differences in time off work, improvement in LBP disability measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and patient-reported global change. Secondary measures will be pain intensity, patient satisfaction, data on patient healthcare resource utilisation and quality-adjusted life year based on the EQ-5D-5L. Discussion Stratified care that effectively targets treatment to relevant sub-groups of patients has potentially great impact on the treatment pathways of low back pain. Thus, if effective, this could result in better patient outcomes and at the same time reduce the costs for treatment of low back pain. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02612467. Registered on 16 November 2015

The effectiveness of a stratified care model for non-specific low back pain in Danish primary care compared to current practice: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Abstract Background Prior studies indicate that stratified care for low back pain results in better clinical outcome and reduced costs in healthcare compared to current practice. Stratified care may be associated with clinical benefits for patients with low back pain at a lower cost, but evidence is sparse. Hence this study aims to evaluate the clinical effects and cost-effectiveness of stratified care in patients with non-specific low back pain compared to current practice. Methods/design The study is a two-armed randomised controlled trial in primary care in the Regions of Southern and Central Denmark (2.5 million citizens). Patients with non-specific low back will be recruited by paticpating GPs. Patients are randomised to either (1) stratified care or (2) current practice at participating physiotherapy clinics. In the stratified care arm, the intervention is based on the patient’s STarT Back Tool classification and trained accordingly, whereas physiotherapists in the current pratice arm are blinded to the STarT score. Primary outcomes in the trial will be group differences in time off work, improvement in LBP disability measured by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and patient-reported global change. Secondary measures will be pain intensity, patient satisfaction, data on patient healthcare resource utilisation and quality-adjusted life year based on the EQ-5D-5L. Discussion Stratified care that effectively targets treatment to relevant sub-groups of patients has potentially great impact on the treatment pathways of low back pain. Thus, if effective, this could result in better patient outcomes and at the same time reduce the costs for treatment of low back pain. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02612467. Registered on 16 November 2015